=
&n=
bsp; &nbs=
p; In
the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Claimant
appeals from an Employment Security Board (ESB) decision finding him
disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits during a pe=
riod
of physical disability and requiring claimant to repay the benefits he rec=
eived
in error.We affirm.

Claimant
was laid off from his job at The Stanley Works in May 2003.On September 29, 2003, the
employer’s plant manager contacted claimant and offered him a job in=
the
plant’s sawmill.The j=
ob paid
the same as claimant’s previous position and required the same skill
level.Claimant declined the=
job,
citing a severe hand injury he received on September 26.The plant manager contacted claim=
ant
again the next day, and again claimant refused the offer to work because h=
is
hand injury prevented him from doing the job.

Claimant
filed claims for continuing unemployment compensation benefits following h=
is
hand injury, but he did not disclose the job offer from The Stanley Works.=
That omission gave rise to a proc=
eeding
before a claims adjudicator for the Department of Employment and Training
(DET).DET investigated
claimant’s benefits and determined that he was ineligible for unempl=
oyment
compensation beginning the week that The Stanley Works offered him employm=
ent
through January 10, 2004.Th=
e DET
claims adjudicator ordered claimant to repay the $5,744 in benefits claima=
nt
received during that time.C=
laimant
appealed the decision to the ESB, and now to this Court.

In
upholding the decision that claimant was ineligible for unemployment
compensation benefits while recuperating from the hand injury, the ESB
explained that unemployment compensation is not intended to ease the
consequences of unemployment caused by an illness or disability.Willard v. Vt. Unemployment Co=
mp.
Comm’n, 122 Vt. 398, 404 (1961).Therefore, the statute governing unemployment compensation requires=
the
claimant to be “able to work” and “available for work=
221;
to be eligible for benefits.21
V.S.A. § 1343(a)(3).Wh=
en an
individual refuses otherwise suitable work because of an injury or illness=
, the
individual is neither “able to” nor “available” for
work.See Willard, 12=
2 Vt.
at 404-05 (explaining that the conditions a worker places on employment,
whether voluntary or involuntarily due to a physical disability, may rende=
r the
worker unavailable for work and ineligible for unemployment compensation).=

Claimant acknowledges that he declined the =
offer
to work in the sawmill because of his hand injury.Claimant challenges the ESB’=
;s
repayment order, arguing that he did not misrepresent the reason for decli=
ning
work.Claimant asserts that =
he notified
both DET and The Stanley Works of the injury promptly after it occurred.=
p>

Although the record appears to support
claimant’s assertions about his prompt disclosure of the injury, that
disclosure is, ultimately, irrelevant to the question of claimant’s =
duty
to repay benefits received erroneously.&n=
bsp;
The material misrepresentation giving rise to claimant’s repa=
yment
obligation was his failure to disclose the job offer from The Stanley Work=
s in
September 2003.As the ESB f=
ound,
the claim cards claimant filed with DET after his accident required claima=
nt to
certify that he had not refused an offer of suitable work since injuring h=
is
hand.Claimant does not disp=
ute
that he was offered a job that he could have performed but for his injured
hand.By statute, claimant w=
as
ineligible for benefits while his hand prevented him from doing suitable
work.Claimant may perceive =
the
repayment order as a penalty but that perception is misplaced.The ESB’s order simply refl=
ects
the fact that claimant was paid benefits in error because his disabling ha=
nd
injury made him ineligible by rendering him both unable and unavailable for
suitable work.